Search

Ethics and trust should be significant values for the food market actors. Firstly, these values will be shortly characterized. Then, the authors describe the role of ethics and trust in food quality and safety assurance and the role of ethics and trust when food hazards appear. The main weak points, the areas of possible problems in keeping ethics and trust will be indicated. The main aim of this paper is to find answer to the question if there is the same importance and role of ethics and trust while food crisis and under normal condition. What should be done to avoid panic among consumers and what should be done to protect the brand of the product. Another key issue is the role of the various participants of the market – producers, distributors, consumers as well as the food control institutions. Each food safety crisis result in big loss - what can be done to reduce these loss.

Food risk analysis is very important. The risk management process is not only carried out in the event of a threat in the food consumed, but also at a time when there is no crisis situation - although during food crises it has a key role in dealing with panic and consumer health protection. Consumers see the risk in food associated with, for example, new technology, a new type of food (confront the risk with the benefits offered by new technology, product), food on which there are different opinions of specialists. In this paper the perception of food risk will be discussed as it depends on many characteristics such as: gender, level of education, age, income and others. In the next part of the paper the stages of food risk analysis will be presented: 1) risk assessment including: hazard identification, hazard characteristics, exposure estimation, risk characterization; 2) risk management: including risk evaluation, estimation possibilities, types of implementation, monitoring and review; 3) risk communication. In the third part of this paper tasks and responsibility in the field of risk communication will be shown.

BACKGROUND Peanuts are one of the main food allergens, occasionally responsible for life-threatening reactions. Thus, many studies have tried to fi nd a connection between peanut allergy prevalence and processes in the peanut chain that may contribute to the peanut allergenicity. To inform this discussion, this paper outlines experiences in peanut cultivation, trade and processing in Europe, focusing on four European countries with different peanut experiences (Poland, Bulgaria, Spain and the UK). MATERIAL AND METHOD Results here are based on documentary analysis and semi-structured, face-to-face interviews with 32 experts involved in various stages of the peanut chain, including peanut farmers, processors, traders, food technologists and manufacturers. RESULTS A common peanut chain diagram has been drawn considering shelled and in-shell peanuts. The analysis of each stage of peanut processing has been made in accordance with this peanut chain schema. Thermal and mechanical processes are discussed alongside the resultant end peanut products available for European consumers. The paper also analyses the main trends of peanut trade in Europe. The results suggest that the majority of peanut products in Europe are roasted, implying enhanced exposure of the population to more allergenic peanuts. CONCLUSION The presented schema and related discussion bring together diverse aspects of peanut production, trade and processing. The main factor associated with the increased allergenicity of peanuts appears to be high temperature roasting. Frying and boiling are also thermal processes, but fried and boiled peanuts have been associated with reduce peanut allergenicity. Neither country of origin nor cultivar type appear to be related to differential peanut allergenicity. More research is needed as regards the impact of various additives, such as chocolate (which is also considered an allergen) on the allergenicity of peanut products. The use of peanuts in non-food products also needs more investigation.

The objective of the research is to develop the risk-benefit assessment models based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and test them in certification of organic products. The ISO Guide 65 /EN 45011 standard and Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 oblige the certification bodies to conduct risk assessment during certification process. However, no specific methodology of risk assessment has been provided in this respect. The AHP decomposes a complex problem into a hierarchy involving goal, criteria, and decision variants. Two hierarchical models, risk and benefit, were constructed based on the relevant publications and consultations with the key experts from one of the nine Polish third party certification bodies (CB), with experience in certification of organic products. Both models have the same decision variants considered in the process of surveillance. The results show that parallel production of conventional products and production of the same goods in organic and conventional versions appeared to be the major risk factors in organic farming. In benefit model, increased trust to certified products and minimization of costs of improper decisions were the most important. The AHP-based models proved very useful in risk-benefit assessment of organic producers and demonstrated a new approach to risk assessment. However, several conditions must be fulfilled before their implementation in practice, such as adjustment to individual needs of a certification body and refinement of the quality management system.

The present paper aims to review and discuss potential and existing risks of GM crops to the environment, in comparison with organic and conventional agriculture. The review of over 30 relevant papers on the environmental effects of modern agriculture allowed us to define five main sources of risks, namely: 1) Pollution by synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, 2) Exploitation of marginal lands and protection of natural habitats, 3) Gene flow, invasiveness and “superweeds”, 4) Impact on non-target species, particularly pollinators, 5) Biodiversity of crops and wildlife. Although these effects are typically considered with respect to GM crops, the paper compares them with conventional and organic systems. The review shows that each factor, except for the “Gene flow, invasiveness and superweeds” (which is a risk specific to GM crops), may have positive and negative effect dependent on the breeding method. For example, conventional crops require the use of a large amount of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, unlike organic crops, while GM agriculture reduces the use of pesticides. Moreover, some risks typically associated with transgenic crops, i.e. decrease of genetic biodiversity, may also arise from conventional agriculture. The paper concludes that there is no perfect agricultural option and trade-offs are needed to satisfy the need for sustainability.